Hilton, as we all know, did not limit his criticism to this low mark. Immediately after the competition, he made a video blog calling Prejean’s response “the worst answer in pageant history” and saying she lost “because she’s a dumb bitch.” He called her response “awful.” With such words, he suggests he finds it offensive when someone civilly expresses an opinion different than his own.

And while her opinion may not be his own, it does reflect that of a majority of the citizens of the state she represented as well as a larger majority of the nation.

We may not agree with her, but should at least respect her for stating her opinion without insulting gay people. We cannot, however, say the same for Mr. Hilton. He did not limit his slurs to allegations of her stupidity and comparisons to female dogs.

And yet while many in the media — including, to their credit, a number of left-of-center pundits and bloggers — took Hilton to task for his remarks, the controversy gave him a larger platform. He appeared on Larry King Live. Watching Larry King toss softball questions to Hilton, I wondered if the CNN host would have been as respectful of a social conservative who had gained prominence for calling gay people “perverts.”

By contrast, in various TV appearances after the pageant, Prejean showed great poise, saying she wouldn’t have changed her answer to the question even if it would have earned her the crown. She refused to attack Hilton personally. As a result, she has found quite a following. Indeed, she appears to have gained more prominence than the pageant’s winner. (A Google search for “Carrie Prejean” yields nearly 200,000 more hits than does one for “Kristen Dalton.”)

While Prejean has gained a following on the right, the gay left has largely been silent on Hilton, with a few even defending his name-calling. A number of gay people have, however, taken him to task. Gay Republican blogger Dennis Sanders said Hilton was “giving aid and comfort to the anti-gay side, because now Prejean will be seen a brave and devout woman standing her ground against the mean-spirited gays,” adding that “we need to be able to show some respect for people at times, even when they disagree with us.”

Such criticism was not limited to right-of-center gays. At the left-of-center blog Queerty, Japhy Grant offered an equally harsh assessment:

At the same time, beyond simple snobbery is the fact that images do matter and even from a short remove, this debate is a ludicrous one. Prejean’s certainly not the first person to state that she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and Hilton’s decision to call her a “bitch” is ratings worthy, but I’m not terribly sure it does any good for the gay community.

Here in brief is the case against thoughtless, knee-jerk outrage: It’s incredibly easy to call anyone you dislike a homophobe and a bigot. Heck, we use the phrases fairly liberally ourselves from time to time, but when the conversation ends at “you are a bad person,” you’re only making yourself feel better and further solidifying the impression that the differences you have are intractable.

It may make Perez Hilton feel better to slur a woman with whom he disagrees on state recognition of same-sex marriage, but it does little to promote that cause. Indeed, it sets it back.

Gay marriage advocates can learn a lot from Carrie Prejean. She made her case simply and without acrimony. Perez Hilton, by contrast, resorted to ad hominem attacks.

Unfortunately, for those of us who favor a serious debate on gay marriage, Perez Hilton is not a lone voice in the wilderness slamming those who favor the traditional definition of marriage. He has merely gained more attention for his barbs.

I still believe I did the right thing in voting against Proposition 8. But when my fellow opponents behave as did Mr. Hilton this month and as did the protesters last fall, I feel less comfortable being associated with such prominent opponents of the initiative.

If such rhetoric alienates a gay man with lesbian friends who have sought state recognition of their marriages, how will it impact those lacking a personal connection to the issue?

Perez Hilton may have gotten a lot of media attention for his antics, but his rhetoric is nothing new. It’s just another example of the coarsening of public discourse on controversial subjects. And the debate on gay marriage seems to have attracted a more vitriolic exchange than other subjects.

For those who favor a serious conversation about changing the definition of this social institution central to our culture, the prevalence of such vitriol only serves to deepen our disappointment with popular culture.

185 Comments, 185 Threads

1.
ked5

Well, are you now seeing what these “so-called” activists really are? Intolerant hypocrits who want to shove, by physical force if necessary, their agenda down other’s people’s throats – no first amendment rights allowed if they don’t approve it.

I’ve been trying to make the same point for months now, ever since Prop 8 passed here in California. I think the campaign opposing the Amendment itself was incredibly stupidly conceived and run, and the reaction afterwords was just plain silly, tantrum politics. A friend of mine, a conservative Republican, did exactly what you are talking about, vote-wise (I think, I’m not sure). He was so offended by their campaign opposing the amendment that he voted for it.

Perez Hilton is beyond the pale, but there’s a group of liberals who have an obsession with being proven right, and lording it over those they feel their inferiors, opinion-wise. They can’t be talked to, won’t listen to reason, and insist on doing their thing, alienating their opposition and making fools of themselves.

Mr. Blatt:
“Gay Republican blogger Dennis Sanders said Hilton was “giving aid and comfort to the anti-gay side, because now Prejean will be seen a brave and devout woman standing her ground against the mean-spirited gays,” ”

“…be seen as…”?

Is that not what she IS?

And Perez Hilton will be forevermore known as a fugly old bitch, with VERY bad hair, and an even worse name.

Sean Penn – the man who took a delightful glass of wine with Raul Castro, and forgot to ask him about why he and his very grubby regime lock up writers in delorable conditions – because Sean had “something else on his mind”?

A gay punk judging a women’s beauty contest! Now that is rich. Who is responsible for appointing this puke to that role in the first place? To me it is obvious that he was a plant and the whole incident was instigated to wreck the beauty contest by using it as a platform for gay rights. I saw “The Donald” give his opinion on “perez”, (used a little p for the little p) and he totally punted. He was a disgrace and it is his show!!

All I can say is if perez ever runs into me, I will bitch slap him! No respect for other people, women or freedom of speech. Let him go back to the blog hole he crawled out of.

First, let me say do not advocate gay marriage.
However let me say that these “gay marriage” advocates are intolerant bigots according to their own standards. They conveniently ignore the 1972 Gay Rights Platform (Google it) which advocates any number of people of any sex entering in marriage. They will not say that even a triad (three people) of gay people can enter into marriage. (Yes, such relationships do exist.) Every gay marriage advocate I asked about that all refuse to consider such a thing. Does that not prove they are narrow-minded and bigoted.

If two gay people have the right to marry, why not three, or four, or more? What about two bisexual men and one woman entering into marriage? Do they have the right to marry? According to the gay marriage logic, who can say they cannot marry? They gay marriage logicians refuse to consider it. Why?

Until they let go of their narrow-minded, intolerant bigotry and advocate the 1972 Gay Rights Platform, I cannot take them seriously.
If they claim they are for the “civil rights” for all and do not advocate for the others, I call them Hypocrites of the Rainbow.

Like most homosexual discussions, the pro-homosexual point of view starts with two falsly assumed facts.
1. Homosexuality is a natural development, not a personal choice.
2. Homosexuals do not have equal rights.

Because homosexuality is a personal choice in sexual activities, homosexuals actually DO have all the rights that heterosexual people have. They want special, extra rights protecting their personal perversions, like NAMBLA campaigns for. They have just been more successful. The fact that America is a tolerant and accomodating culture hasn’t been enjoyed by the homosexual political organizations, it has been explioted and demeaned by them. Like a bully sitting on a kid on a playground, applying pressure until the kid under attack screams Uncle! Their end goal is to apply enough force so that we all accept their sexual practices as normal, and embrace it as wholesome and sacred. Hilton is an example of that culture.

There is a soft totalitarianism that has been marching though our society for decades now. We should be thankful these incidents when these activists slip and show their true colors.

Carrie Prejean is to be applauded for standing up to these intimidation tactics. So, Bravo, Carrie, Bravo!

Donald Trump and pageant organizers should not be excused for their shameful role in this. What on earth was a piece of garbage like Perez Hilton doing on the judges panel in the first place? That is the biggest outrage of all.

Mr. Blatt, you may not be responsible for this subhead to your piece: “Crudely slandering advocates of traditional marriage makes the achievement of equal rights less likely.” This statement is supported by a false premise, i.e., that we have not achieved equal rights. A man may marry a woman, a woman may marry a man.
As Neal Boortz and others have pointed out, each sex has an equal right to marry the opposite sex. Rights are seldom delineated more clearly than that. What some gays want are special rights granted by courts to thwart the interests of democracy. They wish to change the meaning of a word and concept in effect for thousands of years. Very well. Let legislatures decide democratically. But don’t condone those judges who have shown their ignorance of the law and logic by creating a special right and calling it an equal right.

There is no right to redefine a vital, treasured and ancient institution. We recognize marriage because of the importance of marriage in the raising of children.

Homosexuals have a right to live as they please. But I wish they would get a clue and stop being so selfish. Let them abolish their annual public displays of lewdness and obscenity before they insist on changing society.

For most of us, the sticking point is the word “marriage”, a word with deep cultural roots over thousands of years of civilization. The attempt by homosexuals to hi-jack the word is more than a little pathetic. Find a more suitable word to the circumstances, a word that bestows honor on the union. Find a word that the Sacred Band of Thebes would embrace as their own, and swell with pride to say it.

I think it’s ridiculous that the militant Sun-Shiny happy gays have tried to villainize this gorgeous young woman for believing what most NORMAL people believe…that marriage should be between a MAN and a WOMAN. WOW. Scary, I know.

Well, ignoring the entire “should gays have the right to marry” question that I’m sure this thread will devolve into, it seems to me that the homosexual movement is set back a long way by the actions of this little puke and those like him. What disappoints me more then this person’s complete lack of class, is the complete lack of class of the Miss USA officials and Donald Trump himself. First, they selected this moron to be a judge, which we can probable forgive, we all assume that most people would have a certain amount of integrity until they demonstrate otherwise. But when this judge goes off the farm after the pageant and puts out a video calling on of their contestants a b*tch and posts demeaning photo-shopped pictures of her and they say nothing, they become complicit in his sickness. He has no respect for women and no respect for society as a whole. The pageant officials and the Donald, buy not repudiating this loser’s actions after the show, have therefore endorsed it, and should be reprimanded for it.

The only person with any class in this entire matter has been Carrie. She should be proud of herself.

One of the biggest arguments the gay community makes is that the anti-gay marriage cohort is trying to shove its Christianity down society’s throat. Does that mean we should abolish laws against murder? There are certainly commandments against that in the Bible. How about stealing? The Good Book’s pretty explicit about that as well. The truth is, accepting and institutionalizing it into our state is harmful to society at large. Sure, marriage is nothing but a contract so on the surface, no one should be forbidden from entering it. Even the Massachusetts Puritans outlawed church weddings because it was seen as an unnecessary intrusion into government by the state. But we all know what would happen if gay marriage were the law of the land ESPECIALLY in California; it simply would serve as a stepping stone for the gay community to invade every aspect of civilized culture. Public schools would be saturated with it. City council meetings would be dominated by gay grievance mongers protesting the lack of positive gay images. Yadda, yadda, yadda. It’s that threat that keeps people voting against it. We’re not mindless indoctrinates; we see the big picture. The gay community has helpfully illuminated it for us.

Perhaps Hilton’s words were not the best choice, I don’t know that I can fault activists for their inflammatory actions. You try living your life constantly being denied the same rights afforded other citizens and see if you don’t get frustrated. Social progress doesn’t come easy or cheap. Are gay citizens supposed to sit back, play nice, and hope that the heterosexual citizens of the United States someday see fit to afford them basic inalienable rights?! Today, we look back at the 1800′s and early 1900′s and think, “Wow, I can’t believe we were so discriminatory against women and African-Americans. How shameful!” My only hope is that we someday get to the point where we look at our current actions and dismiss them as equally ignorant and prejudiced. What is America afraid of? When are we going to stop making religion and personal morality the number one agenda in politics!

And FYI…for those who are quick to pass judgement, no I am not a homosexual. I’m just someone with common sense and decency.

“I’m still waiting to hear why a gay man is judging a beauty contest for women”

Good query. I suspect the answer is: nobody can question anything a homosexual wants to do, because that means you are a terrible, terrible person, interested only in limiting their rights, burning their house down, keying their car and killing them. (I suppose those are the the activities that Miss Prejean has participated in regularly, and it just hasn’t come out yet.)

We are not allowed to have our own opinions or convictions or habits or faith (ESPECIALLY the Christian faith) in the presence of homosexuals because it might make them feel bad. And if we make them feel bad, well then, they are going to HAVE to HURT us.

Nice to see that some lefties apparently are actually seeing the hypocrisy.

“If two gay people have the right to marry, why not three, or four, or more? What about two bisexual men and one woman entering into marriage? Do they have the right to marry? According to the gay marriage logic, who can say they cannot marry?”

..indeed; why limit it to combinations of people? Why not unions between a man and his horse or German shepard..

If you’re wondering why lefties can be so hateful while excoriating those they disagree with for themselves being hateful, read “United in Hate,” by Jamie Glazov — it discusses the psychological underpinnings of left wing belief and action. All will be revealed unto you!

Whistling past the gayve yard . . . nothing more. If you have any question about the growing sentiment of acceptance and equality, just refer to one word – IOWA. Conservatives have no moral standing on the issue. Why not? Blame Sean Hannity, who expressed OUTRAGE at the “B word” used about Ms California. But just a few months ago . . .

And so the sand shifts beneath conservative feet leaving them baseless, groundless, without principle and without standing. Powerless. And your numbers shrink. Fewer and more strident – a formula for failure. And the world rejoices! “Hallow, hallow, hallow . . . thine is just in time . . . hallow, hallow, hallow . . . smite the circle mind”

On the other hand, Ashlee, are those religious people who really don’t believe in gay marriage just supposed to shut up, lie or dissemble when asked about it? Don’t they have the right to freedom of speech, and/or freedom of religious belief, which is a civil right?

As for your mild dismissal of Perez’s behavior—he could’ve used better working—you’re ignoring the fact the guy went ballistic! First, he asks the woman a loaded question, putting her on the spot. He must’ve known what her answer was going to be. Then, he throws a hissy-fit, calls her b—c, c—–t, and scribbles obscene drawings over her photo, at his website, as if he were a nasty, fifth grade boy.

This sort of behavior is psycho—not acceptable, or understandable.

And isnt’ it gays themselves who are partly responsible for dragging religion into politics here? This was a beauty pageant after all, so why are the judges asking the contestants political questions, that also put them on the spot about their religious beliefs? This is a beauty constest, for G-d’s sake!

Dr. Strange, yeah, speaking of hateful, just take a look at backatcha’s post—if you can make any sense out of it. Hallow, hallow, hallow, hallow, and whoop-tee-doodle-doo! Smite the circle mind (whatever the heck that is!) and save the whales!

But you gotta understand. . . these are tolerant, compassionate people! And that’s why they hate those horrible redneckChristianistas!

I’m a bit equivocal on gay marriage, while unable to see the point of gays arguing about it I am not against civil partnerships such as are allowed here in Britain or even church blessings where the church is willing to accept such a request.

Having said that I have no sympathy with Californian gays who live in probably the most gay friendly society in the world and yet still want more. One gets the feeling some of them will not be happy until “hets” are banished from the state.

It would be wise for them to pull their necks in. Rights that are awarded by public vote can be withdrawn by the same means as the gay community should have learned by now.

I don’t think civil partnerships are really what they want. What they want is for their lifestyle to be called marriage, and for the rest of the world to fall into line and agree with them on this, or face persecution and ostracism. If you belong to a religion that believes marriage is only between men and women, you won’t be able to plead freedom of speech, or freedom of religion; these are civil rights the Left really isn’t in favor of.

The argument has never been about equal rights. The gay marriage thing is part of the agenda to destroy Christianity and the concept of the Family, a father a mother and their right to raise their children without government intervention.

Reply to Ashlee #24. The problem with your and apparently the gay establishments theory on this topic is that gay Americans are afforded the same rights as all other Americans, other than the right to undertake a religious ceremony and be “married”. Civil Unions are allowed in many states and with them come all of the rights and privileges of married couples, however this is not good enough for gay America. No, nothing short of tearing away the symbolism and sanctity of marriage will make them feel “equal”. This entire argument has very little to do about fairness and rights and a whole lot to do about breaking the Church and destroying another building block of our society that does not back the lifestyle of gay Americans.

Please don’t mistake the fact that gays cannot be “married” with the fact that they are being denied the Rights and Privileges of Americans, that is not true, they are not disenfranchised or subject to any unfair set of rules or requirements. No this is purely about breaking the institution of marriage and moving the entire country one step further to the left.

How many people commenting on this story actually watched the Miss America show? I didn’t. I’d bet most didn’t. No doubt a few did, but probably most didn’t. And we all know why. It is meaningless, trivial and banal TV. It is all about showing flesh for cash. OK, as adults, we realize that. So why is everyone so interested in the aftermath? The level of intellect this whole episode requires is, on a scale of 1-10, somewhere below 0. As a gay man (me) I consider Perez Hilton a leech and a low life useless turd in my path. He always has, and always will be, a thorn in the side of respectable people of any persuasion. He does not deserve the publicity that stories like the one published here give him. He is a bad side show and should be treated as such. Personally, I don’t buy tickets to those.

As a gay man, I am embarrassed to tears by this idiocy. Hilton certainly doesn’t speak for me, or for any gay person I know.

I live in CA, which has domestic partnerships. We have “spousal rights” here with respect to property, inheritance, etc. That’s all we need to protect our assets and assure that if one of us dies, the other inherits without interference from others.

During the Prop 8 debate here, I tried to explain to people I work with that even if gay marriage became legal in CA, it would make no difference with respect to federal law or federal benefits. I was talking to walls. People insisted that if it passed, the feds would be forced to recognize it.

As other states pass gay marriage bills, it becomes more likely that leftist gay activists will resort to the courts to impose gay marriage on the country. This is the WORST thing that could happen, as it would enrage millions and bring about a social division that would last for decades, as has the abortion debate.

Let the states decide. Let federalism work, as intended.

By the way, in answer to a poster above, homosexuality is not a “choice” or a “lifestyle”. It is as much a part of what I am as hetersexuality is for you.

Yes, the Miss America pageant is silly and mindless—and, that being the case, why was such a politically loaded question asked during such a fluffy event? And why was the contestant’s negative answer re gay marriage enough to deny her the (admittedly silly) honor of a crown?

What’s disturbing here is the idea that political correctness is starting to seep into every aspect of life; the silly, as well as the serious, and that we’re going to get hammered every time we answer a question honestly—not to mention the fact that we’ll never be allowed to diverge from the politically correct line on marriage, or anything else. And that low-lifes such as Hilton will be allowed to trash, and attack, those they disagree with.

It is certainly true that liberals are extremely intolerant of those whom they consider to be intolerant. One wonders why this is the case with gay marriage. The fact is that traditional conservatives are losing the gay marriage debate and losing it badly. (Just as they’re losing almost every other battle in the culture war.)

I’m not a social conservartive, but I’ve got a lot of respect for them and some sympathy for their viewpoints. They don’t want our country to go down a moral sewer. I sympathize. I still don’t want them to control what our laws are, by and large, but I wouldn’t mind having them as neighbors, I want them to be fruitful and multiply, and I’d be happy if my daughters became friends with THEIR kids, rather than with the “Girls Gone Wild” crowd.

I think the main reason for the continuing failure of the movement against gay marriage is that of all the evidence out there of the degradation of our social, cultural, moral fabric of our lives, the prospect of grown adults deciding to make a committment to each other that THEY consider to be marriage is LOW ON THE LIST of sordid and destructive social developments. The idea of men marrying may be weird, disconcerting, uncomfortable or completely against the tenets of one’s religion. But, seriously, we’re talking about two homosexuals making a real-life committment to one another. We’re not talking about legalizing or encouraging gay bathhouses or pornography or wife-swapping or prostitution or no-fault divorce or government-funded abortions or teenage hookup culture or whatnot. Gay marriage is fundamentally less damaging than any of these other examples of life in America, 21st Century.

That is also the problem with conflating gay marriage with bestiality or adult incest or poloygamy. It is not that we’re throwing out moral standards, it is that on a gut level more and more people are recalibrating those standards, and they do not find the prospect of two men or two women trying to commit to one another to be immoral in that way that they continue to find polygamy and other practices to be immoral.

That is simply not true. Many different things are diminished for gays – health care benefits and choices, end of life choices, inheritance tax burdens – it’s a substantial list. You should research it a bit. It won’t bite.

First: “equal rights” in this context is a dishonest and propagandist usage of the language. Let’s give ‘equal rights’ to bigamists and pedophiles too while were at it. [/sick sarcasm ]

Second: It won’t matter. Right thinking decent people have been wholly shut out of the national debate. It does not matter what they think or believe. The godless Left have attained an insurmountable majority and they are increasing it daily with immigration and debasement of the culture. I’m just marking time until I am hauled off to the camps and then the chopping block.

The notion of “same-sex” marriage is idiotic, as even the birds nesting on my balcony, raising their young, one male and one female, could tell you. Nothing prevents two or more adults from living together, with whatever financial arrangements they want to make, with or without sexual relations. But asking for roommates of the same sex to be called “married” is ridiculous. Those who call for “same-sex marriage” are just trying to destroy the institution of marriage itself.

Ok lets one thing straight here. People are born one way or the other. You do not learn sexuality it is something you are born with. I happen to be a man that’s attracted to women, its beyond my control. I did not decide or learn that attraction it was simply in my DNA. I am not attracted to the same sex, same deal, its not in my DNA. You religious freaks need to realize that it is NOT a choice, it just is, so deal with it. Who gives a rip if two people get married that care for each other are of the same sex. Focus people, there are a hell of lot of issues that are more important like the economy, healthcare oh and a war…..

Not so fast, “not so fast” (#45). My brother-in-law is gay and lives with his partner and each of those issues you mentioned works the same for them as it does for my wife and me. His partner is a doctor and my brother is covered under his health insurance and has been named as the beneficiary on his life insurance. Inheritance isn’t complicated for anyone if the right forms have been completed and submitted correctly. Why don’t you do the research? It sounds to me like you got your info from a gay gripe website.

Of course there are slippery slopes. My point is that allowing “gay marriage” is not particularly a way station on that slope. Encouraging homosexuals to make the best of their unfortunate situation by trying to commit to one another is a step TOWARDS traditional morality, not a step away from it.

On another topic, I happen to have a close friend who struggle with homosexual impulses, refuse to accept these impulses, and tries to “reorient” himself through 12 step program. It CAN work, at least for a time, allowing him to turn not towards heterosexuality, but towards a celibacy. But it HARD beyond belief. Over and over, he fails and has a relapse. I don’t judge his choices. All I can say that him trying not to be gay is a much more difficult cross to bear than anything that I’ve ever had to deal with a straight man. And its interesting that he explains his homosexuality as a consequence of having a weak father figure. I don’t have the heart to tell him that I had a weak father figure too, and certainly didn’t turn out gay.

Go ahead and make your statement as it applies to you, personally. I’ve seen this particular homosexual justification argument before. Just go ahead and get it all out from start to finish. Then go to junkscience.com and go through the tutorial about the scientific method. You will notice anecdotal observations and feelings are not included when providing proof for a theory.

Progressives have been trying to destroy the family unit for decades. Look at the irreparable damage they have done to the black family throughout America. And if you question their motives, you will be labeled a racist unless you happen to be Bill Cosby, and even he is attacked.

I have a hard time believing that all of a sudden the country has become center-left. Recent polls reveal that the country is 78% moderate/conservative, whereas liberal/progressives control Hollywood, academia, big government and the entrenched media. How did we let this happen?

Progressives have won their battles by being mean. I can still remember Anita Bryant having a pie smeared in her face at a radio station. You would’nt think these tactics could possibly work, but unfortunately they have. Is it time to be mean?

I have a gay cousin who tried to repress his sexuality for years. He ended up hurting a couple of women he attempted a relationship with; he left them dumbfounded as to why he could no longer remain with them and I don’t think he ever told them he was gay. Anyway, the guy tried. Myself, many years ago I was in a relationship with a woman that eventually short-circuited because she could not finally admit to me that she was a lesbian. It really hurt me that she was not honest with me from the beginning.

I’m a happily married middle aged man now. I don’t hate gays at all, and I’m fine with them being allowed to have civil unions or contracts that allow them to share benefits and property with their partners. But I am a religious man too and I am against gay marriage. Marriage, in my tradition (Roman Catholic)has some very traditional (and I think solid)purposes, and it is between one man and one woman.

I also know the subtle and hidden Gramscian Marxist purposes behind pushing gay marriage, free sex, bestiality, and all manner of perversions: it is to destroy the fabric of our society, which is based upon the family and Jewish and Christian values. Our children need positive role-modeling and I think it is very important for children to have a mother and a father.

Leftists may call people like me “homophobes.” It’s a lie. They know it. We all know it. The truth is too much for them to bear.

No, you’ll just have to trust me on this one if you’re insinuating I was one watching the beauty doodah. I didn’t watch the Miss Universe Pageant, Miss America, whatever it was. You just couldn’t miss the sequence of events leading to Miss CA’s answer, no matter where you turned.

But after seeing Miss California twirl around in that white two piece for about the fourth time and thinking “boy that looks good”, I might be tuning in next year for the bathing suit part of it.

Nature or nurture; hard-wired or neglected; abomination of natural law or a natural expression of the changing of natural law.

Whatever. Homosexuality is here, there are lots of gays and lesbians out there (my daughter is one) who firmly believe the only “choice” they made was to follow their own natural inclinations, regardless of when those inclinations first manifested (as a young child or as a sexually developing teenager).

This can be debated until the end of days, with no resolution, so for my own peace of mind, I have decided to deal with the reality of it, rather than waste my breath and my time arguing against the morality of it, otherwise, my relationship with my daughter will suffer, and I don’t want that to happen.

Now about the marriage debate: what difference does it make? If one believes that God is the creator and the maker of everything, including marriage, then the next step is to believe it is up to Him whom he blesses in that union. According to the Bible, He calls homosexuality “unnatural.”

So, even if gays are able to legally get “married” with a bonafide license, will that union be blessed by God? According to the Bible, it won’t be blessed by God. And if marriage is a holy bond between the couple and God, and he doesn’t bless it, then is it really a marriage? Again, according to the Bible, not in God’s eyes. It may be a union, but in law only. The couple may receive a church blessing, but does that blessing represent God’s blessing of the union? No.

So who cares if they call it “marriage” when in religious reality, it is not a true marriage without God’s blessing. If it’s a marriage in the eyes of the law, then that’s no different than a legally licensed civil commitment. Why all of this consternation over semantics?

And if we are concerned about the overwhelming acceptance of this act, and the potential for it being widely accepted and taught in our schools and influencing our children, then it’s up to US to teach our children in the ways that we want them taught. It isn’t the school’s job to teach morality, whether they think it is or not. It’s the parents’ job.

Well, those are just my radical thoughts on this subject. Anyone who has read Moogie’s comments on here know that I am just a person who likes to use common sense and discernment in my dealings both political and social. I like reason and reality. I just don’t believe morality can be legislated. I don’t believe morals should be relative, either. But in the face of reality, I think we need to deal with other humans as we would like to be dealt with.

Ozzie:
You seemed so certain about sexual orientation being a choice so I wondered when you decided whom to be. Personally, I don’t buy the idea that people make that kind of choice; but even if there would be some truth to it,I can’t see how that would strengthen the argument against same-sex marriage and equal treatment under the law.

60. fred: “Marriage, in my tradition (Roman Catholic)has some very traditional . . . purposes, and it is between one man and one woman.”

As a Catholic, you have missed one one other important Catholic principle: Pope John Paul in Humanae Vitae reminds us that that marriage must be about having children. The traditional Catholic view is that there’s no point to a marriage that doesn’t produce children.

One thing you never hear discussed about gays or lesbians, is their unwanted sexual advances made on heterosexuals. There must have been something about me when I was young that attracted gay men, because advances came to often. How I avoided becoming a homophobe is beyond me, because I had very good reason to be one.

I can recall many years ago coming home from a movie with my roommate, and my roommate went to bed soon afterwards, only to realize that a gay stalker was hiding under his bed ready to climb aboard. My roommate chases the stalker out of the house, and bashes his car windshield with a baseball bat. Of course today, thirty years later, my roommate would have most likely been convicted of a hate crime. BTW…The stalker was a high ranking official at a local university and continued his obsession with my roommate for several years.

I strongly believe gays are the most protected special interest group in America. They can say whatever they want about christians/conservatives, and get away with it, whereas if you make a slightly disparaging remark about gays, its time to update your resume.

Your point is well taken, but you did make a factual error. The encyclical “Humanae Vitae” was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1968, not Pope John Paul.

But, yes, you were theologically correct in your statement in #69.

There is one thing that some conservatives state going back quite a ways that I do have a problem with. They speak of sexual orientation as a choice. As a heterosexual man I cannot recall any moment or process by which I “decided” to be attracted to females rather than males. Never happened. It’s just the way I am and I don’t have any insight into “why.” It just is what it is. Sexual orientation as a “choice” does not make sense to me, and I don’t think we yet know enough about this mystery to bandy about hypotheses that purport to explain it. It’s a very complicated phenomenon, as far as I can see it.

As was said by 40. Scott the whole marriage debate is a joke. “Gay marriage” is nothing but weak attempt to give legal pre-text to oppressing religion, creating a state religion and giving gays carbuncle to sue anyone and everyone that disagrees with their views points.

When I first started doing research into the debate I was reasonably pro-gay marriage and very pro-civil unions. Then like many ppl I saw what this is really about and what these ppl really want and really act like “off camera”. Nothing done after prop 8 was a surprise… anyone who has been following this debate and done real research knew that it was going to happen.

After spending many years following this… I went from pro-gay marriage to very anti-gay marriage and went from very pro-civil unions to barely pro-civil unions.

The simple fact is that
1. Gays are not being singled out by any laws in regards to gay marriage. They are no more discriminated against then any other group that want to change the marriage law be it everyone from muti-partner marriage to marrying 12 year olds and a whole host of other groups.
2. Whenever gays “win” a new “right” they quickly go out and sue everyone and everything that opposes their belief system… and it is a belief system. Christians, Mormon, everyone else isn’t allowed to sue gays over their beliefs why are gays able to sue them over they’re beliefs.
3. The pro-gay marriage movement amounts to nothing more in vain of a “pro-gay civil rights movement” as the KKK does for “pro-white civil rights”. Just because they choose to lynch by lawyer instead of by rope that make them any better.

Can you now see why Americans are buying guns and getting concealed weapons permits. We are arming to protect our Constitution protected rights. Hilton did NO favor to his cause but certainly hardned those opposed to the gay marriage issue. What a farce to those others who wish to make change in a more civil manner.

Humane Vitae by no means should ever be used to attack those plagued by infertility or those too old to have children. What it does state is that sex is about giving all of yourself to your spouse, not for your own pleasure, but for your spouse’s. Thus, attempting to have sex while simultaneously actively interfering with the conception of a child is perverse. The divorce rates bear witness. Those who practice birth control, premarital sex, etc. have a 50%+ divorce rate, while those who remain chaste (virgins before marriage, faithful within), and don’t use pornography or birth control have a divorce rate of about .1%.

“One thing you never hear discussed about gays or lesbians, is their unwanted sexual advances made on heterosexuals.”

I’ve never had a problem with this. I’m flattered by anyone that finds me attractive, as long as I have understandable grounds for not reciprocating. And I’ve always felt a kind of comfort around gay men knowing that they weren’t in a combat with me to decide who is the top ladykiller alpha male.

People keep saying they were born gay. I just don’t get it I’ve seen no proof of the gay gene
If there was such a thing “natural selection” would have gotten rid of it a long time ago since gays don’t reproduce. People were born heterosexual because that true nature. Some
believe that most gays have no idea that as a child they were most likely sexually “stimulated”, or in some cases molested by a male figure as a child under 2.

What about nuns? What about barren wombs? What about men whose little swimmers just sit there? What about people who choose to not have children? Are they . . . unnatural? Are they not fulfilling their role or responsibility as a human bean? You’d like it all to be very simple, but it’s not. It CAN be simple, but to get there requires people allowing other people to make their own decisions. As long as you try to forbid things, you’re cooked.

“However let me say that these “gay marriage” advocates are intolerant bigots according to their own standards. They conveniently ignore the 1972 Gay Rights Platform (Google it) which advocates any number of people of any sex entering in marriage. They will not say that even a triad (three people) of gay people can enter into marriage. (Yes, such relationships do exist.) Every gay marriage advocate I asked about that all refuse to consider such a thing. Does that not prove they are narrow-minded and bigoted.”

Just because some gay people came up with some platform in 1972 doesn’t mean anyone other than the creators claims it as “their own standards.” I know a lot about gay history and I only heard of the thing last month. It’s like saying that some Christians aren’t living up to “their own standards” because they don’t act in accordance with a platform some random, unconnected Christians made over thirty years ago. Last I checked, there wasn’t some big vote among “the gays” in which the 1972 platform was universally accepted.

Enough with the religious chest thumping. Marriage is a SECULAR institution, that means that a marriage does not have to have approval of any church in order to be legal in the eyes of the law. Gay marriage doesn’t “oppress” your sensitive religious beliefs because your church is utterly irrelevant to the secular institution of marriage.

If you want to live a certain way because you feel your invisible sky being wants you to, more power to you.

“What about nuns? What about barren wombs? What about men whose little swimmers just sit there? What about people who choose to not have children? Are they . . . unnatural? Are they not fulfilling their role or responsibility as a human bean? You’d like it all to be very simple, but it’s not. It CAN be simple, but to get there requires people allowing other people to make their own decisions. As long as you try to forbid things, you’re cooked.”

Nuns have chosen not to marry a man but instead devote their lives to God. Exceptional and out of the ordinary, but hardly unnatural. Women with barren wombs and men whose swimmers just sit there can and do naturally marry the opposite sex. Again nothing unnatural in either scenario. Are you really equating those to the concept that has been around since recorded time that what is NATURAL is marriage between men and women? A stretch even for a liberal human “bean”.

Although I don’t claim to be an expert on world history, to the best of my knowledge there has never been a government that has sanctioned same-sex marriage. On the other hand, government sanctioned polygamy has a long historical record, dating back thousands of years. I propose that governments that don’t already do so, sanction polygamy between consenting adults. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a civil rights issue.

First off, deciding how to vote based on your assessment of the character of the most vocal segments who might vote the same way is a ludicrous notion. I know that you didn’t, but that you were even tempted to, or to reconsider in retrospect, is troubling.

Second, were you to take this approach, it would be unfair to discount the ridiculous and in some cases blatantly dishonest pro-8 campaign proclamations, as well as the impotent, disorganized and counterproductive anti-8 proclamations.

Lastly, to the extent that people on either side of the debate give a damn what Perez Hilton thinks about anything besides Lindsay Lohan’s alternating sexual preference or the dangers of extreme camel toe, we’re all doomed.

Same goes for Miss California.

There is a fundamental issue of rights here, and neither of these people have anything remotely interesting or helpful to contribute to it. This is all a grand distraction, its genesis and focus in the recursively navel-gazing, rarified air of West Coast popular culture, and no one will be better for it.

That is a different argument. Yes the the government step out of marriage… however neither the anti-gay marriage and most of all the pro-gay marriage side see it as a secular issue… if the pro-gay marriage side saw it as secular they would not be demonizing churches planning future(and past) lawsuits against them for denying marriage in the church to gay couples. Under the LAW civil unions are EXACTLY the same as marriage… expect their not “churchy” their secular… notice how that’s not good enough for gays they have to have the religious component as well.

This is the main point of the debate… pro-gay marriage is a religious movement to try to oppress other religions period, theirs really no doubt about that fact. If this was a secular movement civil unions would not only be accepted but also be PREFERRED because they are UNDER THE LAW AND SECULAR in nature. Ppl continue to confuse the fact that this is a religious issue on both sides and it is about 1 religion trying to control/oppress/force other religions to conform to it… we have this thing called the constitution that forbids government endorsed religion… which in defacto pretty much forbids gay marriage under the current “ideals” that the current pro-gay marriage movements believes in.

To 88. StillBill

Spain has it and I think 1 or 2 other Euro countries…. spain also gives rights to chimps(and I think humans can legally marry chimps)….

But its besides the point their is far more logic and polygamy argument then the gay marriage argument.(even though they are basically the same argument).

Can someone fill me in on who this Perez Hilton guy is? What does he do? How does he earn a living? I understand that Barack Obama’s official position is identical to Ms. Prejean’s position. Did Mr. Hilton ever call him a “stupid Bas…”? Why do I smell rank hypocracy here? I am a straight guy, and I don’t mind if gay people want to get “married” or have a “civil union.” I do mind when someone like Ms. Prejean gives an honest answer which coincides with 2000 years of Christian history, and is called vile names and loses a competition because of it. The antics of this Hilton guy have solidified the perception of many that modern-day gay activists are smug and intolerant – just the opposite of the image they try to project.

Show me a significant population of adult women who wish to enter into plural marriages, and I’ll evenly consider their case. But you see, there aren’t.

With triad or other (non religiously-inspired polygamist) types of plural relationships, the numbers are so low and the relationships that do exist are typically so unstable and short-lived, that there simply is no political pressure whatsoever to legally recognize them.

These canards are typically trotted out to suggest that there is no logical or moral basis for extending marriage to same-sex couples that excludes polygamist or other forms of plural marriage, but that’s simply not the case. In the former case, there is a significant fraction of the adult citizenry that is denied a right (with corresponding tangible benefits) extended to the majority. In the latter cases, the percentage is microscopic, and when you remove the typically abusive and entirely male-driven religious polygamist sects, the numbers dwindle to near zero.

I would be perfectly content with removing the term “marriage” entirely from the law, and relegating the formality of marriage to religious institutions. The law of the land would therefore only recognize civil unions, whatever the gender of the couples. Would that suit you?

Many of the differences are obscure, but the insurance issue is very significant for public employees. So long as there are separate codes defining marriage and civil unions, there will be differences in the rights, privileges and responsibilities afforded those unions. They remain separate and not-quite-equal.

Your pretty clueless as well since large numbers of women all across the mideast, africa, asia and even in europe live that life style just because they are not a vocal group here in the US doesn’t mean they don’t exist… I find it funny that all your posts are full of massive and blatant contradictions.

No I’m not incorrect civil unions can be made exactly to the same level as marriage on a state and federal level… because the current laws are not prefect doesn’t change the facts… they are not asking to have civil unions adjusted to match “perfectly” to marriage they are asking for marriage… a huge difference. This is a distraction used to somehow justify a point of view when in fact they are completely irrelevant from each other.

Plus the fact many of the so called differences were put in to prevent massive FRAUD. Any single person can get “unioned” and share their benefits with another person they never met or who are just friends… they have that problem with marriage now however with civil unions you open to 10x the abuse. The “differences” you speak of are a complete and utter joke. Once again if you want them changed I got no problem with it… but thats not the topic… and thats not what pro-gay marriage ppl want either.

Once you break the bonds of tradition (one man and one woman)you will succumb to the no boundaries precedent. Enter the slippery slope. Soon, you will have polygamy, bestiality, marrying multiple humans plus animals, and any other idea that the imagination can concoct.

98. robotech master: Actually I was limiting my point to the United States; I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear. Sadly, I fail to see the relevance of your point; I don’t see how holding up foreign regimes that support forced and/or plural marriages where women (and girls as young as nine, or even seven, have few effective rights) contradicts my argument that you will not find any substantial support for legalizing these arrangements among adult American women.

Perhaps you would care to describe some of the other “massive and blatant contradictions” that my posts are “full of”?

What I find hilarious is that the entire gay movement is being absolutely pwned(*) by a “dumb b*tch.” She’s got ‘em down on the mat in a one-finger pretzel hold and they’re screaming, “Let me up! I’ll keelhaul ye, ye varmint!” Too f-ing funny.

(*) To clarify for any who don’t know, this is Internet slang for “getting one’s butt kicked.” It’s the word “owned” with a characteristic typo at the beginning.

100. robotech master: But that’s not what you said. What you said was, “Under the LAW civil unions are EXACTLY the same as marriage”. That was and remains incorrect. Can civil unions be made exactly the same as marriage? Yes, and they should be.

You should also pay attention to the difference between recognition of the unions among various states and by the federal government. For example, you may have noticed that you did not have the option of checking “Civil Union, Filing Jointly” on your 1040.

As to the argument that some of those restrictions (specifically that cohabitation requirement) are in place to curtail fraud, true indeed. That’s not one of the restrictions I consider significant, but aside from that, I find the concern over fraud an uncompelling reason to restrict rights. If there weren’t so much written into the tax code and insurance standards that depends on marriage, it wouldn’t be much of an issue anyway.

The argument has never been about equal rights. The gay marriage thing is part of the agenda to destroy Christianity and the concept of the Family, a father a mother and their right to raise their children without government intervention.

103. Sebastian Shaw: If you actually have a disagreement with what I’ve written, I invite you to state it. Otherwise, dumb name calling on a comment thread for an article that rightly disparages dumb name-calling is… well, dumb.

105. danebramage: If “the entire gay movement” were on Hilton’s side in this, what you’ve said was correct. Happily, equating Perez Hilton with “the entire gay movement” is about as accurate as equating, oh, I dunno, Ann Coulter with “the entire conservative movement”.

108. Jay O:: “Because of his assholish comments about Miss California, the next time an initiative is on the ballot that would grant gays the right to marry, I will be voting against it.” That is an extremely childish attitude and, frankly, I despair that anyone who would succumb to it bothers voting. Perez Hilton called somebody a “bitch” because he disagreed with her opinion, and the Moonbat Monitor called Perez Hilton a “douche” because he/she/they disagreed with his opinion. Two stupids don’t make a smart.

112. Cathy: They’re in the neighborhood of the ones that forbid from eating shellfish or wearing a garment made of two different materials. But at least you can sell your daughter into slavery! (Somehow Biblical literalists almost never really are, when you pin them down).

Seriously, though, this page (http://www.religioustolerance.org/homglance.htm) has a good rundown – the bias of the site is quite explicit, so you can disagree with the interpretations of the verses, but I believe the list of verses related to homosexuality is not itself subject to much controversy.

114. clue: Yep, I know. It’s rather hilarious to enlighten high school kids who have never actually read the rest of Leviticus. I’ve read the Bible through, and read much of it more than once. I was raised Catholic. Baptized, first-holy-communion-ed, confirmed, all of that. And honestly, I got a bit sick of teachers who told me what to think without knowing themselves and quoted Bible verses out of context. After I had read some of the books, papers, articles and other such literature published by the Vatican, I was OUT.

(Ironically, it was long after I had read the Bible that I found the site below. A bit of a shame I didn’t fine it earlier, really. It also has the Quran(Koran) and the Book of Mormon. The BOM is quite a laugh. I think you’d like it.)

Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon

Romans 1:24-32:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
–26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
–27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I find myself in the same boat as Mr. Blatt. I have many gay friends and have been willing to support gay marriage because I think it’s the right thing to do. However, after this latest incident (not just the moron judge, but all the piling-on of other celebrities), I find myself unable to support any movement that works hand-in-hand with such intolerance and bigotry. If they try to pass it here (Chicago), I’ll not only refuse to support it, but I’ll actively vote against it. Not because I think it’s wrong, but because with the movement in the condition it’s in, I believe many will use it as a step to ramp up their bigotry against Christians and those who find the subject of homosexuality uncomfortable.

MLK knew how to organize a movement (as did Gandhi). These people are hateful, spoiled children who will openly throw tantrums when they don’t get their way on any issue. What’s really funny is that they are the same people who railed against how square people were for wanting to get married while I was growing up. Now if you don’t let them get married, you are the equivalent of George Wallace.

Fred, it isn’t the attraction that counts, but the action.
I am attracted to money, but I don’t go into banks and take money at gunpoint. That is because I choose not to.
Arsonists are attracted to flames, they choose to burn things so they can watch the pretty flames. Child molesters are attracted to children. Instead of fighting that attraction and getting help with their fight, they CHOOSE to act on their attraction. Homosexuals make the choice to act on their attraction.
It is the action that defines deviant behavior.

“Homosexuality is not a choice.”
Absolutely wrong! You choose to perform deviant sexual acts. You could have chosen not to. So it IS a choice.
For those homosexuals in denial, point out the genetic sequence that causes homosexual behavior. You were recruited just like EVERY other homosexual.
“in criminology, Differential Association is a theory developed by Edwin Sutherland proposing that through interaction with others, individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal behavior.”

“Criminal behavior (motivations and technical knowledge), as with any other sort of behavior, is learned. Some basic assumptions include:

* Learning in interaction using communication within intimate personal groups.
* Techniques, motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes are all learned.
* Excess of definitions favorable to deviation.
* Legitimate and illegitimate behavior both express the same general needs and values.”

Homosexuality isn’t a civil rights issue, but an anti-social issue.
Treating it as a civil rights issue would be the same as treating other anti-social behavior problems, such as arson, murder, rape etc as civil rights issues.

Your points are however meaningless and not the topic. If you want to talk about civil unions go for it… however this is in context to marriage.

As for the federal level well duh… whats your point. Once again we get back to the real debate which is no matter what happens pro-gay marriage ppl have no interest in civil unions/fixing civil unions/making civil unions at the federal/etc,etc,etc.

Why don’t they? Because civil unions are not religious thus are of no interest to the pro-gay marriage movement. You can dance and dance around how civil unions are prefect… however thats mainly because gays have ZERO interest in fixing them or making them national. Once again keep it to the debate if you want to debate civil union thats fine but that has nothing to due with the current topic expect that gays have ZERO interest in them.

This article is filled with a such focus on appearances, but does little to say anything of much depth about the issue at hand. So some of the gay left act immature. So what? There are plenty of examples of the conservative anti-gay right who act immature as well. We find this kind of behavior on both sides. Just because a Prejean was covering up her true feelings about gay marriage and using “civil” language to back up her opinion about its lack of morality doesn’t mean that she is any better than Perez Hilton. She was the one being judged, so of course she had to act more conscientiously. Hilton, on the other hand, was a judge that was emulating Simon from “American Idol.” He wasn’t being held to the same standard. Most people under the age of 40 agree with Hilton about Prejean’s lack of understanding about the issue and her willful disgust toward gay marriage and gay people in general. Her disgust was readily apparent to anyone who is gay. And she should not be able to get away with it. And I’m glad that Hilton lambasted her for being wrong-headed and idiotic, because that’s exactly what she was being with regard to this issue. Her reasons against gay marriage were void of any substance. Tradition is no reason to continue to discriminate and act out of prejudice with regard to a matter of civil rights.

go read Genesis – any version. Read about Sodom. What does Sodomy mean? do you know the origin of the word? (it came *from* the city of sodom). go look it up in the OED (re: Oxford English Dictionary – considered the epitome of an English Dictionary) Why did God destroy Sodom?

You wanted to know where it was, so you can start there. As to your opinion on the subject, I consider it irrelevant.

Tell me, do you think prissy hilton is a nice guy, or was an intolerant bigot?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27 – “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

I have a niece who is a lesbian – and my feelings are warmer towards her than her mother/my sister.

Homosexuality is a choice in that those with homosexual feelings *choose* to act on those feelings. *Everyone* who has ever lived has had, or will have, challenges (these are aside from the everyday penny-ante stuff) given to them. (yes, I’ve heard all the – “if something bad happens to you, you must be doing something wrong” arguments, all I can say to that is – go read Job. I’ve also decided those who use it are afraid of bad things happening to them, and think they have control over outside forces.) some challenges are obvious to others, some not. Some are socially acceptable, some not. some come in a short and intense burst, some are a lifetime of a single major challenge. etc. If that means a homosexual who is struggling never marries and lives a celebate life, well, there are many hetersexuals who never married (and chose to not be sexually active outside marriage), *and* are also celebate. It is a choice.

I believe it is part of our experience to prove we will choose to feed that part of us which is Godly (which everyone started out with, and can be either encouraged or repressed by circumstance and our choices), by cultivating that relationship, rather than indulging our more base desires.

I had opportunity to visit with a woman who had been living a lesbian lifestyle. After her lesbian relationship, that she thought was going to last her lifetime, ended, she chose to focus on her relationship with God. not something she’d ever expected to do. She was clear, that as she focused on that “Godly” part within her, her sexual feelings for women did ebb. Frankly, I considered her to have very great wisdom in the focusing on God thing, that can apply to anyone, whatever their challenge.

to me, it isn’t what challenge someone has, but how they deal with it. Does that person feed their base instinct, or the spiritual/Godly part within?

#71 Fred – as a follow-up, I should have included: it does come down to wether we believe our whole existence is our mortal existence, or if life continues after we die. If we believe life continues, we can also believe that any pain and grief experienced through mortal challenges will be more than made up – to the degree we strive to feed our godly side. (I believe God recognizes our sincerely trying – even if we still struggle) being able to feel what *real* joy and happiness are.

117. Des: That’s disappointing to hear. Your position seems to rest on the belief that, based on your recent observations, allowing gay marriage at this point will do more harm than cause, because it will encourage some kind of behavior (I’m not sure what) which will outweigh any merit based on justice that the action would immediately have. I disagree.

123. ked5: I actually don’t know what you’re talking about. I suppose you’re suggesting that this moniker is a sock puppet, and that I’ve posted here under other aliases. I have not. If you choose to believe so, there’s nothing I can do to dissuade you, but in fact it’s irrelevant; if you disagree with what I say (or even if you agree), say so. Otherwise, what’s your point?

127. ked5: True, if your primary concern in life is the disposition of your own eternal soul, it makes sense to live life in a way that will better your odds of having a happy ever-after. But the question is, what are the rules? Should we live this way?

“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.”
(Leviticus 25:44-46)

Or this way?

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.” (Exodus 21:7-8)

Is this truly the way of God? Must we tolerate, if not commit ourselves, slavery? Including even the sexual slavery of our own daughters? Surely this is not the way to Heaven.

Surely you can’t be suggesting that we put homosexuals to death?

“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20:13)

But if it’s not true that Christians have a responsibility to kill homosexuals, then how much of the rest of it is true? If the guidebook of the path to Heaven is, when it comes down to it, open to some interpretation, how can you be sure that you shouldn’t kill them, and also be sure that you shouldn’t allow them to marry?

“Most people under the age of 40 agree with Hilton about Prejean’s lack of understanding about the issue and her willful disgust toward gay marriage and gay people in general.”

Evidence please! AFAIK, EVERY non-biased poll shows that Masters and Johnson’s 2% still holds true, despite 3 generations of propaganda on the subject. Homosexuals claim that it’s much higher then that, but when it comes time for proof, all they can prove is that birds of a feather stick together. EVERY time the issue is put to a vote, the homosexuals lose big time. Maybe it is something about being in the booth where there is no peer group pressure or agi-prop. Homosexuals are working thru the Judiciary because it is cheaper to buy a judge then an election.
On a positive note, the largest political block in America is the Christian block. They seldom vote as a group, but when they do, watch out. President Bush owes his 8 years in the oval office to Christian voters. The Usurper won because they stayed home. That and the October stock market collapse.
Nothing will get Christian to the polls faster then legalizing gay marriage. Now conservatives need to get those Christians organized to get rid of Judges that allow gay marriage.
The indirect approach to resolving the gay marriage issue is thru the tax system. AFAIK, married couples still get tax breaks. Get rid of the income tax, so tax breaks are no longer an issue and the gay marriage push will lose a lot of steam.

Just a suggestion, but don’t bother providing a laundry list of scripture. While I understand your motives, I think it is more like Matt 7:6 -”Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.”

So, basically, James G., you’re saying Prajean, and everyone who believes the way she does, must be punished for (in your opinion) showing “disgust” and holding to traditional views.

In short, you’re saying we mustn’t have freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion anymore, because these are offensive to gays—though these have been considered “civil rights.” In your opinion, agreeing with the gay agenda trumps all else. Gotcha.

I heard it said last week that having Perez Hilton judging a beauty contest was like having Ray Charles umpire the World Series. So True. That aside, how ironic it is that such bigotry and hatered is spewed from a person representing a group that demands such tolerance.

Anyway, I will ask it again: Have scientists found a so-called “straight gene”? How do you know you’re straight or heterosexual? I know the answer. It’s the same reason why gay people know they are homosexual.

Why can’t you understand this? Even if gay people NEVER act on their feelings, they are still gay. It’s like a straight person never acting on his or her feelings. They are still straight.

“Anyway, I will ask it again: Have scientists found a so-called “straight gene”? How do you know you’re straight or heterosexual? I know the answer. It’s the same reason why gay people know
they are homosexual.”

“Why can’t you understand this? Even if gay people NEVER act on their feelings, they are still gay. It’s like a straight person never acting on his or her feelings. They are still straight.”

feelings nothing more than feelings, thanks babs.

There’s is not a single strait gene because there are billions of them that result in two beings, male and female, basic nature, reality stand in front of a mirror. We are designed one way. I find it funny that that the left believe that gay, transsexual, transvestite, etc are natural or born that way but then the “over millions of years” of creation of male and female social roles and the nuclear family is some kind of “construct of society”. I would ad more about psychological trauma at an early age but it would get bounced. The construct s every thing else the human mind can create out side of traditional male female rolls. the strait gene is the sum of our parts.

89. Sorry, but you’re completely wrong. As it stands, marriage is a SECULAR institution. Again, a marriage does not have to be approved by a church to be legal in the eyes of the law. Ministers are allowed to sign off as witnesses on the marriage license, but if someone gets married by a Judge or a ship’s captain or a Justice of the Peace, that marriage is just as valid in the eyes of the law. If your church doesn’t want to perform gay marriages, that’s your right. But your church’s objections won’t matter diddly squat if the secular state feels otherwise.

138. Erasmus:
89. Sorry, but you’re completely wrong. As it stands, marriage is a SECULAR institution. Again, a marriage does not have to be approved by a church to be legal in the eyes of the law.

Correct! our grandparents at the beginning of the last last century 1900 made a big mistake by letting the secular Govt. create “LICENSE” for marriage thus opening the door to all regulation, this is the epicenter of this problem today. As with most things the Govt. touches it creates unintended consequences, and with this it destroyed Judeo/Christian values, thus destroying everything western civilization worked for. the concept of individual freedom
without this foundation becomes slavery.

139. I’m not exactly sure how you can make the case that YOUR religious values are “destroyed” if people who don’t share your religious worldview are allowed to enjoy secular benefits that aren’t dependant on your church’s approval. Should certain religions also be allowed to force all of society to adopt their particular dietary laws as well? As much as I love Kosher hot dogs, it’s my right as an American not to be bound by Kosher law.

Marriage in regards to the state’s regulation of it involves mainly property and probate. If you feel that state involvement in the marriage arena is unacceptable, I take it you’ll be returning all the tax refunds and inheritance breaks you get from your straight marriage?

Finally, I find it laughable that you puff your chest about liberty and individual freedom, when you seem to want the state to be subservient to the Church in order to deny people YOU don’t care for the freedoms you claim to value so highly.

By the by, kids, does anyone find it ironically comical that a website that is utterly obsessed with the notion that Islam is going to force everyone to adhere to its religious practices is openly advocating that the secular state should force Americans to live exclusively by Christian religious practices?

143. GregGS: It’s not a draw. Imagine you’re left-handed, and I don’t think that using your left hand for everything is clean. I believe that it’s a choice, and one that only a person who wants to be unclean would make. You explain to me that it’s not a choice, it’s always been that way, and furthermore you can’t see anything particularly wrong with it.

If I hold to my position that it’s a choice, despite your claims to the contrary, then I’m calling you a liar. I am making a claim that impugns your character. And since I am the one making the claim, the onus falls on me to provide some evidence.

But no, what I’ll probably do is, even though every left-handed person I’ve ever met (sans a few who, frankly, are probably ambidextrous but just like to tweak me) swears up and down that they never decided to be left-handed, and point out that I myself can’t recall ever deciding to be right-handed, I’ll continue to hold what I believe is the high ground. Because the truth is, I’m convinced the behavior is immoral, and free will doesn’t come into it. I would still believe that writing, or eating, or shaking with your left hand was wrong, even if if the sinner in question could not choose.

“Then don’t shake hands!”, I’d say. “Learn to eat with your right hand! Commit, if you must, to a life of abstinence from handwriting, because the sin of left-handedness far outweighs your selfish desire to put the poetry in you head on paper!”

So, please stop talking about choice. You wouldn’t care if there wasn’t one, because you wouldn’t accept homosexuality any more than you do today.

The future will show that gay marriage will be forced upon institutions that don’t want to be involved with gay marriage as it already is happening, just not with the force of law, yet it’s just like an all mens club is forced to have women but there are all women clubs that don’t have to meet the same standard. Like the online christian dating service E harmony I believe, that’s been forced through courts/ lawsuits to include gay dating service. But I’m sure there are online gay dating services that don’t have to meet the same standard. It’s the reality of this world the left does not like.

Gays have secular choice in domestic partnerships at a court house and fall in line with
state’s regulations of property and probate.
Why would I give back taxes that were taken from me in the first place before I have the chanse to purchase things I want or need. I would love to have the state out of the income tax issue too, and into a sale tax. nother argument.

Islam is quite the violent group that want to impose on all individuals, no questions just death. The state is not forcing Americans to live exclusively by Christian religious practices far from it, it’s forcing every “group pathology” upon the foundation of the state that created our freedom, again freedom without the Judeo/Christian foundation
is like the rest of this world as in the 3rd world that includes the islamic world all of it or like the dozens of marxist messes.

One of these days, the scientific community will learn what causes a person to be gay. And, hopefully they will be able to eliminate the gender challenged, like Perez Hilton,from some future generation.

147. GregGS: “Gays have secular choice in domestic partnerships at a court house and fall in line with state’s regulations of property and probate.” That’s not accurate. Domestic partnership and civil union laws (at least in the US) only come close to providing the same rights as marriage in a few states. Moreover, few federal institutions recognize them, and, quite importantly, same-sex unions are generally not recognized state-to-state in the manner that marriages are (and in fact same-sex marriages, where they are legal, are not likely to be respected in states where they are not).

It’s simply false to claim that same-sex couples already enjoy the rights of opposite-sex couples. When we reach that point where they do, then I’ll be delighted to call it a civil union or whatever other name you’d prefer–as I previously stated, I’d love to see the government get completely out of the business of “marriage” altogether, and only support civil unions, regardless of the genders of the couple.

But until that day comes, you cannot argue that equality exists. You either believe that the current inequality is just, or you do not. If you do, simply say so. If you do not, stand against it.

It’s those extra special rights that annoy me the most. If everyone was treated as an individual, as our Constitution demands, there would be none of this crap becoming an issue. Our government is as much at fault on the marriage issue as anyone.

Marriage should be the provenance of religion. Churches should be the ultimate authority on marriage. Government is prohibited by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution to interfere in religion. Civil unions should be the only venue for a government based committment between two people or however many of any combo they can get passed into law.

Marriage should be limited to the church. However, as we know from the Robinson case of the Episcopal faith, homosexuals are celebrated. So not all churches would limit marriage to one man and one woman. The world has gone through periods of nonsense and stupidity before. I guess it’s our turn once again.

Arroyo, once scientists find the so-called gay gene, they will also find the straight gene by elimination. However, I’m not so sure there is a “gay gene.”

Gender challenged is a misnomer. I’m a masculine guy who likes other masculine guys. Everything about me screams MALE except I’m gay. If you met me, you would not even consider I’m gay unless I told you. I don’t tell many people because I consider the subject of homosexuality boring.

It’s like someone to ask you, “How does it feel to be heterosexual?” You probably never really thought about it.

I agree Perez Hilton is slime of the earth, but that does not mean all gay people are slime of the Earth.

147. GregGS: “Gays have secular choice in domestic partnerships at a court house and fall in line with state’s regulations of property and probate.” “”That’s not accurate.”"

Could you state the rights gays do not have with civil unions or domestic partnership or binding wills or other legal documents put together by lawyers the heterosexual world uses, in their partnerships, marriages or not?

150. No offense, buddy, but good freaking luck telling non-religious people that their marriages aren’t valid because they weren’t sanctioned by a church.

Again, marriage is a SECULAR institution in the eyes of the law. Churches of course can participate in the legal function of performing the ceremony and signing the license if they choose. However, the church does not nor should they have final say about the SECULAR institution of marriage. If your church doesn’t want to perform gay marriages, that’s your choice. Last time I checked, no one forced a church to marry people who didn’t belong to the denomination. No one forced a Catholic church to marry a divorced person.

Hell, no one has forced churches that teach people that man rode on top of dinosaurs to stop teaching that.

The way to avoid the sectarian violence that plagues countries that intertwine Church and State is to keep Church and State separate. Why is this so hard for you guys to grasp.

153. GregGS: I linked to a wikipedia article upthread that has a rundown of the differences in CA. Here are a few other references, but please bear in mind that what I consider to be the most severe of them–that same-sex civil unions are not recognized by the federal government nor by (in most cases) states other than the one they were performed in–are not really disputed. These disparities can have profound impacts for bound couples in terms of tax burden, ability to relocate, adoption rights, parental rights in court, and a long list of other matters. If you consider every federal and state law that accounts, somehow, for marital status, subtracting those few where same-sex marriages or near-equivalent civil unions are allowed, you’ll find that the net is a great deal if inequality indeed.

Bear in mind, too, that domestic partnerships are a somewhat different breed; they typically allow unmarried, cohabitating couples (gay or straight) to be eligible for insurance and certain other benefits (though these are often subject to additional federal taxation that married couples would not face, as the federal government does not recognize domestic partnerships). Most importantly, there is no recognition of domestic partnership as a bond between two loving adults; there’s no sense of the contract married or unioned couples enter into.

94. Sebastian Shaw: “How do you know you’re straight? You just know. Have scientists found the “straight gene?” No. Yet you proclaim to be a heterosexual correct? This is the same idea with gay people.”

Actually, like most people, I really don’t know if I’m straight or not. I’m married to a woman and have 6 children because I chose to do so. I’d rather be single and sit in a Lazy-Boy watching TV all day long playing with myself. But I choose to be married with 6 children, working my butt off because I believe the evidence that says I will live a longer & richer life. Maybe I’m gay as a fruit-cake, but I’ve chosen to live what should be a better life.

#142 Sebastian – I respect you for saying so plainly, honestly, and respectfully what you are like. What I respond so negatively to is the “radical” gay community who is constantly pushing their lifestyle into my face through all the various machinations to achieve equality, and to also be just plain mean because of their own insecurities, and real or imagined injustices.

My own experience is that there is a creature of nature that for whatever reason is attracted to the same sex. I won’t deny their existence and I don’t want to be judgmental. Most people are naturally attracted to the opposite sex, and unlike #156, if they are honest with themselves, men like the female form, voice, hair, and other charms and women likewise like men for much the same reason. There is a sexual attraction and fulfillment to be had that just doesn’t come to mind for them (same sex attraction that is).

I know that there are those gays who are “fem” as you put it. You can see it in their build, the way they walk, talk, etc. And like you, there is a spectrum of “gayness” which may or may not be apparent. But there is also a cultural phenomena where young people are “choosing” to be gay because it is “hip”, evidence of being open minded, tolerant, etc. Some choose to “explore” while others never think of such a possibility.

156. Larsen E Whipsnade: If, other considerations aside, you would have been just as happy settling down in a long-term, loving, committed and sexual relationship with a man – well, then you’re bisexual. And there’s nothing wrong with that at all, brother, nothing at all.

Personally, I couldn’t ever see myself in a loving relationship with a man. I just kind of go “ugh” at the thought of it. I can get that sex is fun, and wandering far outside your normal experience can be super kinky fun (or a sin up there with eating shellfish or not following the proper rules when selling your daughter into slavery – whatever), but I just wouldn’t ever fall in love with a man. It’s just not in me. So no, I never made a choice to be straight; it turns out I just am.

I don’t claim to speak for gay people – I don’t think anybody should feel entitled to speak for gay or straight people, nor should anyone be regarded as having that capacity – but I would dearly love to see the conversation elevated beyond sex. What I personally feel is the more crucial point is not, who do you want to have sex with, but instead, who have you fallen in love with?

Because that’s actually what’s at stake. Gays and lesbians are generally free, though with varying personal and societal consequences, to have sex with whom they choose. That’s not the issue. The issue is love. I defy you, unless you’re bisexual, to tell me you had a choice about which gender those you fell in love with would be from.

I can’t imagine that you or any other straight person ever had a moment in your life where you decided that, even though you were fully capable of falling in love with somebody of your own gender, you simply chose not to due to moral or pragmatic concerns.

You can tell me Homosexuality is normal until you are blue in the face. You can even make it illegal for me to say anything against it(even tho I dont, until now) but you cant take away the queaziness in my stomach every time I see 2 Men or 2 Women acting like a Married Couple. The sick feeling in my stomach didnt come from years of Conservative Indoctrination. Comparing Homosexuality to Slavery is the stupidest thing I ever heard but the left spouts it all the time. No matter what the Law becomes the Govt will never be able to Legislate out of me the Sick feeling in my stomach.

Larsen E Whipsnade, I have known from experience, many married men lead secret double gay lives while their wives are none the wiser about their activities. These men have children & live in suburbia. But they also have the urge to be with a man of a sexual nature.

I don’t seek out married men, but they come to me like a moth to a flame. I usually find out they are married later. And they have been leading these double lives for YEARS.

The married men may be gay or bisexual, but the line has blurred since they seek out other men.

whyaminotsurprised (#159), I dislike the militant gay Left myself; their whole profession is to simply be gay. I find that to be one long boring note while a whole symphony of keys are ignored. There’s more to life than homosexuality & heterosexuality, although both keys are important. But they are only a note to a song & not the whole song…

I understand telling the world one’s sexuality can be intimidating to some people. I just find it’s really know one’s business. I am private person & I like my privacy.

161. clue: “I can’t imagine that you or any other straight person ever had a moment in your life where you decided that, even though you were fully capable of falling in love with somebody of your own gender, you simply chose not to due to moral or pragmatic concerns.”

Clue, you’re living a fantasy. “Falling in love” is a comic book fantasy for the simple reason that “love” is an action. It’s a decision we make, as in we decide to love someone. It’s a choice. As a man, I can decide to love an animal or a school-boy, or a woman, or my English teacher, or myself. It’s a choice, just like I can choose to get drunk if I’m worried about something. For every choice there’s some kind of payoff. Some choices, like loving a woman and having children, have a much bigger payoff than others even though they take a lot more work and I don’t get to sleep in on Sundays. I could easily decide to be a rock-star and take up the cushy life of a homo, but I choose the more difficult path of loving a woman and houseful of demanding children.

Paul (#166), it is largely due to the subject matter at hand. Gaypatriot does it daily on his website. I feel no need to hide who I am, but I am hardly broadcasting either.

I just believe many of you all’s opinions are slagging the entire gay population which speaks of your ignorance of the subject. I will not stand here & be slagged by someone who does not know what they are talking about, particular homosexuality & being gay.

I have lived it my entire life. Have you? From your answers, you don’t have a clue. Hence, my messages of broadcasting. I did it out of necessity on the subject matter rather than to talk about it off the cuff with no real rhyme or reason.

Sebastian in 167 – I just believe many of you all’s opinions are slagging the entire gay population which speaks of your ignorance of the subject.

How do you know that we’re ignorant? We have all lived our various lives which bring us into daily contact with gay people. Some of us have gay children, relatives, and neighbors. We watch real gay people on TV. Most of us are well educated. If some of us have concluded that some gay people are ignorant, bombastic and dogmatic, then you might have a listen. There’s some insightful stuff being said here. We don’t have to be gay to comment intelligently on what some gay people on TV are saying to us.

165. Larsen E Whipsnade: That was really quite extraordinary. I’m deeply saddened that, for you, falling in love is a fantasy. I myself have fallen in love more than once, and am still in love with the woman (now my wife) I fell for eleven years ago. I’ve been smitten many more times than that, of course. It’s really never been terribly voluntary, but most importantly, to my, point, it’s always been women. I have never felt the same kind of happiness with a man, even a very good friend, that I’ve had in the company of a woman I’ve loved. I’ve never felt the same kind of longing for a man that I have for a woman. And I’ve never felt the heartache at the loss of a relationship–even with a good friend–that I have at the end of a relationship with a woman I loved (or heck, even liked a whole bunch).

You portray yourself as being exceedingly logical, immune to desire and making only rational, measured choices about life. I submit to you that a cursory examination of people pretty much anywhere in the world, at pretty much any point in time, would strongly indicate that most people are not like you. Most people have little if any choice about whom they’re attracted to and who they love.

However, I will not claim that I know your mind or heart, or the choices you’ve made, or whether they’ve been yours to make. Having no evidence to doubt your words, I will accept them as honest and true to the best of your own self-reflective knowledge.

You would do well to extend the same courtesy to others. Claiming that homosexuality is a choice, when basically everybody with first-hand experience says that it is not, is claiming that all of these people are liars. You are welcome to hold that opinion, but it reflects poorly upon you if you put it forward as fact without any supporting evidence.

Thank you for a calm, rational article on such a hot topic. If we are going to get anywhere with the issue of gay marriage it will be through intelligent comments and shows of respect like yours.

It is impossible to have respect for such childish, hateful antics, whichever side of the debate they appear.

I do not support gay marriage. I do support respesct for everyone. I do support the right to fight for what one thinks is right. I applaud pro gay people like you who are fighting with integrity for what you believe in. Again, thank you.

Perez definitely voted Obama, they’re both fascists. I have a feeling we’re going to see a lot more of this, vilifying anyone who isn’t in line with the status quo’s agenda, of pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, pro-gays, etc..

When are we going to rise up against not only the censorship of our voices, but the fact that anyone who does raise their voice is put on a DHS alert list, or publicly slandered. I got my guns, do you??? You’d better get some if you don’t, or you’ll be caught with your pants down.

No. Homosexuality and all the different trani stuff are psychological issues not not genetic one.
I am commenting on the statement below.

“Most people have little if any choice about whom they’re attracted to and who they love.”

People use nothing but choice, looks, personality, strength, money perhaps, etc. it’s not random like astroids swinging around the middle of nowhere. even natures animals use choice, like who’s got the biggest most colorful feathers, or the best song or growl.

But if she’s right about no choice then that might explain the divorce and unwed mother thing in society, but then again I still just consider that to be under “poor choices” as in not thought through honestly by mature psychologically stable adults.

176. GregGS: I think you might be saying that homosexuality is a psychological disorder–that would be incorrect, but I wouldn’t be able to talk you out of believing so, I’m sure.

Regardless, I didn’t say that people have a choice about whom they have a relationship; I am speaking about attraction, and love, and all in between. Your example of animals (unintentionally, I’m sure) supports my position: Bright plumage, scoring the final head-butt on the other buffalo, having the prettiest scent or singing the loveliest song illicit a reaction in animals (not to mention humans) that is involuntary. To what extent to animals have a choice about whether to act on that impulse? Depends on the animal; humans have a lot, ants none, everybody else, somewhere in between. But nobody chooses to have the /reaction/. It just happens. It’s nature, and psychology, and whatever else, but it isn’t voluntary.

You’re simply not capable of suddenly deciding to be attracted to a person. Sometimes you can talk yourself into it, sometimes you can talk yourself out of it, but it’s work to do so, and you know it’s never quite genuine, regardless of how necessary it might be. And again, as I’m trying to broaden the debate beyond sex and into loving, committed relationships, same thing–sometimes you can talk yourself into it, sometimes you can talk yourself out of it, but you don’t have a choice about whether you desire it in the first place.

I’m still confused by the focus on “choice” amongst people against gay marriage (or homosexuality in general). Perhaps that’s because my notions of right and wrong are broadly utilitarian and not based in Biblical (or any other religious) law. Because there is no harm in homosexual sex, homosexual relationships, or even the widespread acceptance thereof, I believe it is wrong to interfere in those activities–and also wrong to exclude gay couples from the same rights and privileges enjoyed by straight couples.

I suppose if wrong is only wrong because the Bible says so, and right is only right because the Bible says so, then this particular issue must me starkly clear–after all, there’s no ambivalence in the Bible about homosexuality, just perhaps some wiggle room on whether gays ought to be killed now or left to live the rest of their lives before suffering eternal torment. Yet I have yet to meet anyone who can really read Leviticus (for example) and state that we ought to live by those rules, from shellfish to slavery.

I don’t know if your objection is religious or not; that just seems to be a very common trait, so I’m throwing it out there. I’d actually be quite interested to hear from anybody who support straight marriage and opposes gay marriage for reasons that are not religious–I haven’t met that person yet.

Over 100 hundred years ago a eugenics movement gained strength arguing that those who are deemed defective in some way should not be allowed to contribute to the gene pool. Eugenicists promoted sterilization and even elimination of the unworthy (as defined by some elite group). Support for this horroble concept thankfully wained in the U.S but was later embraced by some guy named Hitler (who ironically was a great candidate for elimination based on eugenics theory).

When I see and listen to the likes of Perez Hilton I understand better the eugenics philosophy although its unlikely that Hilton,and others like him, will add numbers to the human gene pool short of some miracle. The guy adds no value to the human race, and is a typical taker and fame seeker. Let him spew his venom – he only embarasses himself. Note though two things; one, the difference between a hetero and homo couple is that one can produce life and the other cannot. I think that is meaningful. Two, a leader of the eugenics movement went on to found Planned Parenthood and her name was Margaret Sanger – was she promoting abortion as a way to manage entre to the human gene pool. Maybe so.

I just don’t understand anyone’s failure to grasp why gays and supporters of gay rights would protest the removal of equal access to marriage, re: Prop 8. They acted with anger and vitriol? Wouldn’t you? How would you react to the announcement that you’ve lost a basic civil right because a majority of people don’t like your lifestyle? Mob rule brings mob resistance and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Like Miss California could have gotten to the pageant without a whole cadre of gay fellas fixing her up?! You think some straight men tarted her up? Sure, it’s a stereotype, but a true and a good one.

Spare me the anger and the angst. Gay marriage is coming whether you like it or not. And we’re not going to shut up about it and we’re not going to be quiet about it and we’re not going to go all “uncle Tom” like the nitwit who wrote this story. If it takes a little anger and it Miss California’s feelings (or anyone else’s) get hurt, then too bad.